Audit tools of the trade: Automated Auditor Elicitation Can Be Sensitive to the Context the Auditor Is Given — AI benchmark

Ben Slater, Ryan Lundqvist, Leo Richter, Kevin Wei/Audit tools of the trade: Automated Auditor Elicitation Can Be Sensitive to the Context the Auditor Is GivenUnknown

Does providing additional context to automated AI auditors improve their effectiveness? Using the Petri tool to audit LLM coding agents, we test the impact of providing two types of resources (an external codebase and benchmark transcripts) to LLM auditors, across four auditor-target LLM pairs and three behaviours (harmful compliance, reward hacking, sycophancy). (1) External codebase: We provide the auditor LLM with a fixed, external open source codebase, which prior work finds improves the realism of synthetic audits. Providing this resource suppresses reward hacking in both auditor-target pairs whose baseline rate is above the floor (4.8 to 1.3 and 3.9 to 1.8 on Petri's default 1-10 scale); the remaining two pairs sit at the floor throughout. The suppression recurs in three of four pairs under a different scenario and resource bundle. (2) External benchmark transcripts: We provide the auditor with transcripts of the target's performance on benchmarks measuring similar behaviours, intended to inform the auditor about the target's behavioural patterns. Providing this resource raises reward hacking scores in all four pairs (from 1.7 to 6.1 in one case). However, subsequent experiments show that supplying only the related benchmark's abstract, without transcripts, also increases reward hacking, and the effect is absent under a different framing of the same behaviour. Overall, we find no consistent effect of either resource outside reward hacking, but we find substantial variability in judge-scored behaviour across conditions. Our results underscore the importance of careful piloting with tools such as Petri, as the measured rate of target behaviour is highly sensitive to configuration decisions. We hope our results inspire more research into the reliability and robustness of automated alignment auditing.

benchmark

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed9h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

not enough history

Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at

inactivepushed

not enough history

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems

0 · benchmark

Commitment To Cooperation With Self-Negotiated Contracts

0 · benchmark

Exploring Structures in Physics Problems: Can AI Agents Discover Statistical Mechanical Mappings?

0 · benchmark

Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation

0 · benchmark

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler9h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing